Young mum's kids remain in care

THE weather looks bleak and so does the situation. Yet Kirsty is a woman on a mission.

Today the young mum, who has learning difficulties, has come to court through the snarled-up traffic and spotting rain to argue why two of her children – her 14-year-old son and five-year-old daughter – should be returned to her by Nottingham City Council.

The children were taken into foster care after the boy witnessed a violent row between Kirsty and her former partner.

Kirsty is, of course, not her real name. Legal anonymity for all relevant parties protects the children involved in care supervision proceedings like this one.

Until earlier this year, the media weren't allowed access to the family division. An exception was if either side involved in residence or contact cases applied for an open hearing or a judgment to be heard in public.

The courts were known as the "secret courts", their territory great blank tracts from which only the occasional geyser of outrage gushed into public view.

However, in April, Justice Secretary Jack Straw suddenly changed the law to allow the media access.

Unfortunately, reporting restrictions remain confusing and Parliament has not yet had time to revise them.

When I request clarification from the Ministry of Justice, I'm told that, until legislation is in place, journalists can "report sufficient outlines of cases that will allow their readers to understand the nature of proceedings without identifying those involved".

The change in the law seemed to have caught everyone unawares.

Down the decades, family courts have grown comfortable with their privacy. In Nottingham, they are still adjusting to the media's gaze.

Nottingham's Family Courts are heard in two city locations (there are also courts in Mansfield, Newark and Southwell and Worksop and Retford). Just under a third of cases – mostly the less complex ones – are heard at magistrates' court. The rest, including all divorce and financial cases, are heard in the two courtrooms and judges' chambers that make up the family division of the County Court, located opposite the Broadmarsh bus station.

The main categories dealt with are custody battles (now called residence), access (now called contact), divorce, adoption, care and supervision orders.

Last year, the Notts courts dealt with some 1,460 divorce cases and 140 care and supervision orders.

On my first visit to the court, in May, the atmosphere facing press attendees was positively hostile.

The sparse court lists, which hold no details beyond the name of the judge, the court number and the type of case to be heard, had "NO ACCESS TO THE MEDIA" printed across them (the media are still barred from such hearings as financial disputes where there may be some hope of divorcing parties settling their differences).

In the intervening month, the printed "access" signs had been removed but attitudes remained the same.

"The court sits in private," snaps an usher, when I request access to Kirsty's case.

"But since the legal change..." I begin.

"I'm aware of that but the judge still has to give his consent."

There follows a two-and-a-half-hour period of corridor-loitering during which I have no idea if I will be let in.

Meanwhile, a constant carousel of pinstriped legal persons clicks smartly in and out of the courtroom.

Lack of information for the press and public is a serious hamper to credible and consistent coverage of the courts.

With little idea of what the cases is about, never mind if their staff will be allowed access to report on proceedings, few newspapers have the resources to spare.

"After the novelty has worn off, the media isn't going to be interested in coming down here while the restrictions are the way they are," predicts Angela Davis, from Berryman's Solicitors, a mum of two who has specialised in family law for 18 years.

"You could have so many wasted journeys.

"Unless it's somebody high-profile, I imagine editors will be reluctant to commit staff."

The celebrity reporting hierarchy took shape in June when national journalists descended en masse upon the divorce proceedings of Earl Spencer.

After the judge overruled a request for the case to be heard in private, the Earl and his ex-wife opted to settle out of court to avoid publicity.

Meanwhile, reports of less gossip-column-friendly cases have fallen virtually silent.

Yet you sense openness matters vitally to some.

Down the overheated, stucco-walled corridor, a man is holding his stubbly head in his hands. He is shouting at his solicitor.

"I'm not a bad person. I'm a really good dad, yeah? I don't know why the system is telling me I can't see my kid!"

His solicitor is speaking to him in a low voice, trying to usher him away.

"I don't want to go and talk!" he explodes. "We've been talking for two years! I can't get a job. I can't have a life. The day I became a father, I became a criminal. I just want my access. I'm sick and tired of this!"

Yet the outburst barely registers in the blank-eyed faces of those sitting around. A mother tries to quieten her shrieking baby. Such dramas are normal.

"Going back about 10 years, I remember one father actually standing on top of the Broadmarsh bus station threatening to throw himself off if he didn't get what he wanted," recalls Angela.

"I don't think it worked and he certainly didn't throw himself off."

The usher has returned. She wants to see proof of my press credentials.

"You're not a media studies student, are you?" she asks, suspiciously.

"You're the first request I've ever had," she explains, softening slightly when I show her my press card.

After the dramatic build-up, the courtroom seems commonplace. Two barristers stand in the windowless room discussing the weather.

"What's it like outside – anyone know?"

"Warm and grey."

The judge, Mr Justice Bennett, arrives to start the day, hearing various objections to my presence.

Eventually, after listening to submissions, the judge declares the media have a right to be present. Kirsty's hearing then takes place. In family justice, you sense there is no stark divide between right and wrong – only shades of grey and a working out of what is best for the children.

Kirsty does not get the ruling she wanted. The case will be re-heard in two months, following further inquiries.

I leave the court. The sun has, indeed, broken through the "warm grey" skies.

But, as I walk down the sunlit steps, I pass Kirsty, sitting slumped. For her, the world is still very grey.

Comments

I too have experienced so called professionals lying in court. Cafcass are there to represent a child in court but the cafcass officer assigned to my son lied about what he said so he's been made to see his violent and abusive father. Disgusting!!

I too have had me and my son lied about in court. These so called professionals are often on a power trip and abuse their position. Fortunately my situation did not involve having my child removed. Cafcass was involved in a child contact case and totally lied about what me and my child said. Therefore i would be the first to believe that such organisations such as social services and cafcass are nothing but filthy rotten liar, and the judges are just as bad because they believe what they say every time.

I wish the press were at the same court when our kids were taken away. Lies were told to make the judge think things that are just not true. Now the same is happening some more five months later. When are these courts going to open up like the magistrates courts. I really do not think it is about protecting minors as appose to keeping things secret? and the real abuses that go on in these courtrooms. Especially the prosecuting barristers.

Justice must be done and be seen to be done. - While I agree with respect to criminal cases, I think that most if not all civil cases should be held in private, as it's not really anybody else's' business, and may put people off from seeking justice.

How sad for this lady , she obviously loves her children very much . Why do the social services do nothing about a family close to where i live and see what an example this woman sets to her children and she does not have learning difficulties .

I iive next door to single mum who has three children and she had her children removed by the courts last Xmas because the Social Services deemed her as an unsuitable mother because she also has learning and living disabilities.
Ive seen her and heard her many a night time through the walls of our homes singing to the children and telling them bedtime stories.She kept them well fed and clean.
Her ex was and is an absolute time waster and should never have had sole custody granted.
Yet they was removed from her just before last Xmas.
She cannot see them and her mum and dad, the childrens grand parents cant see them either.
Her Ex only took them on for the state hand outs and a nice big house.
He didn't want to know the children whilst the nmother was stuggling to bring them up.
As soon as he knew what state benefits he would be entitled to he put in for sole custody.
The mother struggled at times but she coped and she coped well.
If she had been given more help she would have coped even better.
Its not right for any fit, able, loving mother to lose her Children.

I iive next door to single mum who has three children and she had her children removed by the courts last Xmas because the Social Services deemed her as an unsuitable mother because she also has learning and living disabilities.
Ive seen her and heard her many a night time through the walls of our homes singing to the children and telling them bedtime stories.She kept them well fed and clean.
Her ex was and is an absolute time waster and should never have had sole custody granted.
Yet they was removed from her just before last Xmas.
She cannot see them and her mum and dad, the childrens grand parents cant see them either.
Her Ex only took them on for the state hand outs and a nice big house.
He didn't want to know the children whilst the nmother was stuggling to bring them up.
As soon as he knew what state benefits he would be entitled to he put in for sole custody.
The mother struggled at times but she coped and she coped well.
If she had been given more help she would have coped even better.
Its not right for any fit, able, loving mother to lose her Children.